How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

[Ken-1122]

If there's no objective standard then you can't condemn behaviour, only say that it's different.

No; freedom of thought allows us to condemn any behavior

That leaves the thorny issue of how law courts justify legislation that encourages and condemns moral behaviours,

Courts don’t condemn moral behaviors, they condemn illegal behaviors. What is legal vs illegal is objective, what is moral vs immoral is subjective.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

No; freedom of thought allows us to condemn any behavior

Condemn according to what Ken?

Courts don’t condemn moral behaviors, they condemn illegal behaviors. What is legal vs illegal is objective, what is moral vs immoral is subjective.

How to they determine what behaviours to make illegal?

 

[Ken-1122]

Then how do you determine what behaviours are considered 'good'? Something being good or bad or wrong or right assumes an objective standard. Otherwise it's just preference and nobody is right or wrong, only different.

I have my own moral standard. It isn't a universal objective moral standard, but it's still a moral standard.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I have my own moral standard. It isn't a universal objective moral standard, but it's still a moral standard.

Then how do you determine what behaviours are considered 'good'? Something being good or bad or wrong or right assumes an objective standard. Otherwise it's just preference and nobody is right or wrong, only different.

The question still stands. You're still determining behaviours upon a standard you deem to be true (not relative), weighing evidence for one behaviour or another (according to the not relative standard) in order to think it's good (what determines something to be good is another assumed non relative standard).

 

[Ken-1122]

Condemn according to what Ken?

Yes.

How to they determine what behaviours to make illegal?

Through compromise. A group of people decide laws often by compromising to a degree some of their moral standards in order to come up with something everybody can all agree on.

 

[Bradskii]

The inability to reach the truth =/= subjective truth. It equals belief. You're not deciding truth, you're deciding what you believe the truth is. You can be wrong and you will be wrong according to the standard on which you judge the moral matters. What you've just described is not moral relativity Brad.

Your definition of belief in this matter is not the same as mine. I dislike saying 'I know x to be true' and I almost always prefer to say 'I believe x to be true.' But you'll note that I did say 'why I personally know that I am right'. That's uncommon for me and I would normally say 'why I personally believe that I am right.' But the latter opens oneself to a suggestion that there's some uncertainty. But I use belief in the same way as, if prompted, I would say that I believe the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, as opposed to I know it will.

If there's no ability to determine what is true then what's the point of being on here discussing lol. If you're going to be correct according to your standard then I will be correct according to mine. What's the point of discussing? Surely you see the problem here, if we disagree on morals or the standards they're based upon then in order to settle the disputes we would need to assume a universal standard, making morals not relative. Why do you keep conflating belief with truth? I'm assuming you don't use the same reasoning of "subjectively deciding the truth of the matter" for science so why do you all of a sudden use that reasoning for this?

You will need to discuss it with me because it's your responsibility to explain your position. Period. And I guarantee that there will be times when we disagree. And I equally guarantee that if I hold to a position that I have reached over many decades, then a few minutes chatting is not going to change my mind. Yeah, I know, I did say that 'I will hold to my position until you convince me otherwise.' But that's a characteristic of mine. You'll see a quote from Voltaire at the bottom of this post which explains it. I just cannot admit to being 100% certain of anything. It's the way I am built.

So no, you've no chance of changing my mind on most things. But I feel obliged to give you the opportunity because I dislike absolute certainty.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Through compromise. A group of people decide laws often by compromising to a degree some of their moral standards in order to come up with something everybody can all agree on.

If everybody is right according to their own standard, then how is it they can condemn anyone for doing a 'wrong' thing?

 

[Ken-1122]

The question still stands. You're still determining behaviours upon a standard you deem to be true (not relative), weighing evidence for one behaviour or another (according to the not relative standard) in order to think it's good (what determines something to be good is another assumed non relative standard).

I believe moral truths are not only subjectve, but also relative to the situation at hand.

 

[Ken-1122]

If everybody is right according to their own standard, then how is it they can condemn anyone for doing a 'wrong' thing?

Sounds like you're confusing subjective morality with objective enforced laws. There is a big difference between the two.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Sounds like you're confusing subjective morality with objective enforced laws. There is a big difference between the two.

No I'm not, in order to condemn a specific behaviour as wrong necessitates the use of objective fact, whether it's a law or not has nothing to do with it.

I believe moral truths are not only subjectve, but also relative to the situation at hand.

And? If it's true that morals are subjective as you say, how would anyone be considered wrong for doing heinous things? See my use of the word heinous there? I assumed a moral standard on which to call an act heinous/wrong. If you truly believe that morals are relative, then why waste your time arguing with other people about what's right & wrong? Whatever they do is right according to them and it's indisputable because morals are relative.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Your definition of belief in this matter is not the same as mine. I dislike saying 'I know x to be true' and I almost always prefer to say 'I believe x to be true.' But you'll note that I did say 'why I personally know that I am right'. That's uncommon for me and I would normally say 'why I personally believe that I am right.' But the latter opens oneself to a suggestion that there's some uncertainty. But I use belief in the same way as, if prompted, I would say that I believe the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, as opposed to I know it will.

I'm using Justified True Belief There's a brief overview of it here. It's explained in 1-1.3. I believe it has it's problems and limits but I also believe that it reflects how we think naturally the best. Or rather it's in accordance with with how God has structured reality and upholds it.

I know we've been a bit prickly to one another due to frustration but for what it's worth I hold no hard feelings against you. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond and in detail. The reason I respond to you a lot is because you seem to provide the best jumping off points for discussions that highlight the differences between our respective worldviews. For what it's worth mate thanks for hanging in there with a professional bogan. I know that I'm not exactly easy to respond to myself and can be on the frustrating side.

 

[Bradskii]

I would also like to know your epistemological justifications for your morality and why certain behaviours are considered good, also I would like to know why you would use those presuppositions and if they're assumed or not.

Allow me to run with this briefly.

Incest is lmost universally considered immoral. Now there are very practical reasons why it's not a good idea. My position is that those, by virtue of a random throw of the genetic dice, thought 'Hey, why not..?' have been removed from the gene pool. And those, by dint of a different roll of those dice thought it not such a good idea, have their genes propogate through society. They were selected for, to use an evolutionary term. So now we all consider it to be somehow wrong, even if we weren't aware of the biological problems.

Now if biology had worked out differently and breeding within a family was evolutionary advantageous, then those who thought it was a good idea would be selected for and those who didn't would be removed from the pool. And then we would all think it was wrong to have sex with someone outside your family group.

There is so much that we puzzle about why we think is so right or so wrong that are simply evolved characteristics of Homo sapien. God given? Hey, go for it. I prefer 'nature did it'.

 

[Ken-1122]

No I'm not, in order to condemn a specific behaviour as wrong necessitates the use of objective fact, whether it's a law or not has nothing to do with it.

No. Objective fact is not necessary for me to condemn something. I can condemn anything I disagree with

And? If it's true that morals are subjective as you say, how would anyone be considered wrong for doing heinous things? See my use of the word heinous there? I assumed a moral standard on which to call an act heinous/wrong. If you truly believe that morals are relative, then why waste your time arguing with other people about what's right & wrong? Whatever they do is right according to them and it's indisputable because morals are relative.

Just because something is right according to them does not mean I am required to sign off on it! If I disagree with what they are doing, I have the right to condemn it. If they disagree with my condemnation, we can have a discussion to see who can convince who is right

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Just because something is right according to them does not mean I am required to sign off on it! If I disagree with what they are doing, I have the right to condemn it. If they disagree with my condemnation, we can have a discussion to see who can convince who is right

Your condemnation is entirely worthless though as the person you disagree with (because of your subjective preferences) is just as right as you. You can't condemn, only call that other person different. Your discussion to determine what's right would need to assume a standard that allows for morals to be right. Under moral relativity it's impossible.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Allow me to run with this briefly.

Incest is lmost universally considered immoral. Now there are very practical reasons why it's not a good idea. My position is that those, by virtue of a random throw of the genetic dice, thought 'Hey, why not..?' have been removed from the gene pool. And those, by dint of a different roll of those dice thought it not such a good idea, have their genes propogate through society. They were selected for, to use an evolutionary term. So now we all consider it to be somehow wrong, even if we weren't aware of the biological problems.

Now if biology had worked out differently and breeding within a family was evolutionary advantageous, then those who thought it was a good idea would be selected for and those who didn't would be removed from the pool. And then we would all think it was wrong to have sex with someone outside your family group.

There is so much that we puzzle about why we think is so right or so wrong that are simply evolved characteristics of homosexual sapien. God given? Hey, go for it. I prefer 'nature did it'.

My position laconically summed up: Descriptive genesis of behaviour does not justify specific moral actions.

Less laconically: Explaining why something happened does not necessitate or provide a standard on which to condemn moral actions. Under evolutionary thinking murder or slavery for example is not inherently immoral. It can be considered immoral for a society, but another society may consider it moral. In order to have one be right or wrong requires an objective standard. So ironically (due to the use of laconic), the Spartan opression of the Helots would be considered moral for them and for us it is obscene. In order to say it truly is obscene and wrong, not just for me but for them also, I would need to provide a reason as to why that's the case. Under an evolutionary morality that is impossible as a universal prescriptive behaviour doesn't exist, only what's best for breeding. Which differs based on society.

My extreme super ultimate laconic position regarding the invasion of the Persian Empire: μολὼν λαβέ

 

[Bradskii]

I'm using Justified True Belief There's a brief overview of it here. It's explained in 1-1.3. I believe it has it's problems and limits but I also believe that it reflects how we think naturally the best. Or rather it's in accordance with with how God has structured reality and upholds it.

I know we've been a bit prickly to one another due to frustration but for what it's worth I hold no hard feelings against you. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond and in detail. The reason I respond to you a lot is because you seem to provide the best jumping off points for discussions that highlight the differences between our respective worldviews. For what it's worth mate thanks for hanging in there with a professional bogan. I know that I'm not exactly easy to respond to myself and can be on the frustrating side.

I think that justified true beliefs relate primarily to facts. Which (and I think I disagree with Ken here) are needed on which to base a moral decision. Whether the beliefs are justified needs to be agreed before the arguments for or against a specific act can be made. But they will be absolute. Facts are always absolutely true.

And one prickly Aussie to another (who else uses bogan?)...no worries, mate. I'm enjoying the discussion. You're making me work a bit harder in any case. So now it's an hour or so re-aquainting myself with Knowledge, courtesy of Stanford. May as well get a cold one before I start...

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I think that justified true beliefs relate primarily to facts. Which (and I think I disagree with Ken here) are needed on which to base a moral decision. Whether the beliefs are justified needs to be agreed before the arguments for or against a specific act can be made. But they will be absolute. Facts are always absolutely true.

I would disagree and argue that all claims begin with or assume truth propositions. All claims to what is true about reality or rather what is reality begin with truth propositions. This is one of the reasons I detest "burden of proof is on you" dismissals lol (not saying you're doing that I just detest it in general). It's like no, you need a reason as to why what you believe about reality is true too. All beliefs are truth claims and require justifiction, which is why there's no basis for moral facts under evolution. As the determining factor for what is moral is inherently subjective (breeding).

 

[Ken-1122]

Your condemnation is entirely worthless though as the person you disagree with (because of your subjective preferences) is just as right as you. You can't condemn, only call that other person different. Your discussion to determine what's right would need to assume a standard that allows for morals to be right. Under moral relativity it's impossible.

That’s why it’s important to have a discussion; it isn’t enough to say you are wrong, you have to explain why they are wrong. If their standard is different than yours, then you are at an impasse. That’s how morality works in the real world, and that is also why we have enforced laws; because people don’t agree on moral standards, but we do have to agree on laws.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

That’s why it’s important to have a discussion; it isn’t enough to say you are wrong, you have to explain why they are wrong. If their standard is different than yours, then you are at an impasse. That’s how morality works in the real world, and that is also why we have enforced laws; because people don’t agree on moral standards, but we do have to agree on laws.

We're spinning our wheels here mate. If there's no standard that's universal to base morality on then it's true that morality is subjective, but it's also equally true you're unable to condemn the holocaust as universally evil for example (or say that the holocaust was truly wrong). You can only say it's different. And no we don't have to agree on laws if they're not true or correct, if that was the case there never would have been the abolishment of slavery.

 

[Bradskii]

My position laconically summed up: Descriptive genesis of behaviour does not justify specific moral actions.

Less laconically: Explaining why something happened does not necessitate or provide a standard on which to condemn moral actions. Under evolutionary thinking murder or slavery for example is not inherently immoral. It can be considered immoral for a society, but another society may consider it moral. In order to have one be right or wrong requires an objective standard. So ironically (due to the use of laconic), the Spartan opression of the Helots would be considered moral for them and for us it is obscene. In order to say it truly is obscene and wrong, not just for me but for them also, I would need to provide a reason as to why that's the case. Under an evolutionary morality that is impossible as a universal prescriptive behaviour doesn't exist, only what's best for breeding. Which differs based on society.

My extreme super ultimate laconic position regarding the invasion of the Persian Empire: μολὼν λαβέ

You asked 'why certain behaviours are considered good'. Or bad. That was the part to which I was responding. And incest is an excellent example. There's an old philosophical question about a brother and a sister who decide to sleep with each other as a one off. And, if you accept the premises that absolutely no mental or physical harm comes to them and nobody else knows...is it wrong? Even though my gut reaction is that it is wrong (thanks to evolution), I have to say it's ok. Because it's my position that if no harm has been done then nothing immoral has occured.

But can we base a general moral decision on that? No, because as sure as God made little green apples, some brothers and sisters (or family members) would suffer harm. So it's not recommended.

And now I know more about 'molon labe' than I ever did. I assume the following exchange was pure Hollywood:

Xerxes: Our arrows will blot out the sun.
Leonidas: Then we shall fight in the shade!